On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:00:52 -0300, Frederico de Holanda <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>In making axial maps, we use a very simple and unambiguous procedure to
identify a STREET - and plot it in the axial map: it must be PUBLIC, i.e.
there are no obstacles (any sort of PHYSICAL control) preventing people
from accessing it from urban space at large.
>
>"Streets" in CLOSED condominiums are ignored and are NOT ploted in the
>axial map - no matter how large the condominiums are (and they can be
>quite large in Brazilian cities). And we did not need "semantics" to it -
>this is pure syntax... After all, concerning streets, we are studying the
>structure of the PUBLIC OPEN URBAN SPACE, aren't we?...
Well I thought you were studying the space where social interaction can
happen (the social logic of ...?)... and in the UK that does not need to
be public? The parks in London, for example, aren't they owned by the
Royal family? Aren't they private? What about the square around Abbey in
Euston Rd? Great (private) place to eat your lunch if you work in the
area... BTW, I've had great social interaction on the ramp of Torrington
Plc...
The point here is that the concept of public or private is cultural: what
is considered private in one country may not be private in another. So
looks like you DO need semantic information after all...
Try again ;)
Rui
>
>If we are to consider "private streets" I suggest we add to the axial map
of London the axial map of the internal spaces of the British Museum, the
Tate Gallery, The Royal Festival Hall, the residential towers in the
Barbican...
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>Frederico de Holanda
>
>Cond. Vivendas Colorado 1, Mod. J, Casa 1
>73070-015 Brasília DF
>Brasil
>
>Fone / Phone: (0xx61) 34859641 / +556134859641
>Celular / Mobile: (0xx61) 99861724 / +556199861724
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lucas Figueiredo
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: What is a street?
>
>
> On 01/06/07, Hoon Park <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > So, if applying this 'rule' and rephrasing my question, can we say
that a
> > little droop in the lower-tail of an observed degree distribution may
> > reflect the incompleteness of the data in keeping a consistent mapping
> > resolution? Or consequently, if continuity aggregation, or any other,
> > makes the power-law hold better, can we say it is therefore a better
way
> > of representing a street network? Or else, is a 'street' perhaps any
> > linear aggregation of spaces that entails a power-law degree
distribution
> > at the higher-order level?
>
> It can reflect both things. The experiment is not independent from the
> scientist. The lower-tails may be a problem with the data or just the
> real phenomenon, why discard this hyphotesis? On the other hand, the
> scientist may be well 'tweaking' the aggregation process, not to
> 'observe' the phenomenon, but to 'create' it.
>
> Apparently, as scientists does not care anymore to explain what they
> are assuming before the experiments, being allowed even to ignore the
> existence of whole fields such as space syntax, it is difficult to
> judge what is the phenomenon and what is simple play with different
> methods that will generate the phenomenon.
>
> Are we observing things or simulating things?
>
> Are we starting from questions or from answers?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lucas Figueiredo
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/
>
> Mindwalk
> http://www.mindwalk.com.br
>
> __________ Informação do NOD32 2304 (20070601) __________
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 Sistema Antivírus
> http://www.nod32.com.br
>
>
|